Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(6)
The transplant recipients were compared with 190 non-transplant recipients with scedosporiosis who were described in the literature.
Mean copy numbers of AdV in MUD, MMREL and IDSIB recipients were compared using ANOVA.
Demographic data and baseline measures on the caregivers and the care recipients were compared between the intervention and the control groups.
There were few statistically significant differences in self-reported motivation, program attendance, or mean weight loss when higher-risk recipients and lower-risk recipients were compared with control subjects (P > 0.05 for all but one comparison).
To investigate possible explanations for the higher risk of lower BMD in females, male and female HCT recipients were compared according to body composition, screen time, calcium and vitamin D intake, prevalence of hypothyroidism, hypogonadism, and GHD.
Simultaneously, V3 sequence variation in viruses infecting vaccine and placebo recipients were compared and key V3 residues were analyzed to understand their contribution to optimal V3 structure and function.
Similar(54)
Subsequently, the frequency of low and high cytokine producers in BCG and BCG+OPV recipients was compared in Poisson regression model with robust variance estimates [11] using the median cytokine level in the total population as cut off for low and high responder.
To further investigate these two possible mechanisms, the effect of SM LN removal in three types of "high-risk" recipients was compared.
For all immunostaining, littermates or outgrowths from the same recipient mouse were compared.
Recipient characteristics were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's Exact Test or Continuity Correction for binomial variables, where appropriate.
Vaccinee and placebo recipient data were compared, apart from the time to first OME outcome, for which comparison group data were included from all randomised subjects in the OM-RCT; i.e. before detection of OME and subsequent randomisation.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com